Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!evax!texas!netkeeper!news
From: koll@NECAM.tdd.sj.nec.com (Michael Goldman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Segmented Architectures ( formerly Re: 48-bit computers)
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.172325.10800@sj.nec.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 17:23:25 GMT
Sender: news@sj.nec.com
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: 131.241.12.43


	Why Segmented Architectures Are Wrong

I could recite a litany of horror stories about how my segmented life was
made intolerable by operating system bugs, application bugs, and compiler
bugs ("- The Huge Model doesn't work in your version, but for $75 we'll
send you version 4.1.3 Rev G where it does. - Oh, you have a deadline?
Well, for $25 more we can express it to you in just 2 weeks! - Really Sir!
Such Language!!") .  Instead, I will simply point out that segments add
complexity to programming, which results in bugs, which take time to find
and to fix, which delays time-to-market, which costs money.

One can make theoretical arguments and claim that Intel's implementation
was limited by current technology, but in practice, these limits are what
we will always be facing.  The "Keep It Simple" vs. "Hey guys, let's put it in
hardware!" battle will never end, and I'm not about to argue with all those
Intel CPUs out there, but most programmers prefer simple architectures.

Of course if you have a gazillion customer market, requiring a $1 solution,
then the above yields to the virtues of a 80188.